State v. David

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. David

    269 Ga. 533 (Ga. 1998)   Cited 35 times
    In David, an officer observed a marijuana pipe on a table in an apartment through an open doorway, then saw an occupant try to hide it. Finding exigent circumstances, our Supreme Court noted "the likelihood that the contraband was in danger of immediate destruction, as it was undisputed that the officer saw one of the apartment's occupants attempt to conceal [it] upon seeing the officer at the open door."

    DECIDED JUNE 15, 1998. Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 225 Ga. App. 541. R. J. Martin III, District Attorney, Michael T. Muldrew, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant.

  2. Gates v. State

    229 Ga. App. 766 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that there were no exigent circumstances to warrant officers’ seizure of marijuana spotted in plain view from neighboring yard and, accordingly, reversing denial of motion to suppress

    See State v. Echols, 204 Ga. App. 630 ( 420 S.E.2d 64) (1992); State v. Zackery, 193 Ga. App. 319 ( 387 S.E.2d 606) (1989)." State v. David, 225 Ga. App. 541 ( 484 S.E.2d 278) (1997). In this case, the officers observed the marijuana from a place they were legally entitled to be, because they had obtained defendant's neighbor's consent to enter that property.

  3. State v. David

    504 S.E.2d 528 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)

    JOHNSON, Presiding Judge. The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case having been reversed by the Supreme Court, State v. David, 269 Ga. 533 ( 501 S.E.2d 494) (1998), our decision in State v. David, 225 Ga. App. 541 ( 484 S.E.2d 278) (1997), is hereby vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. Judgment reversed. McMurray, P.J., and Ruffin, J., concur.

  4. Cates v. State

    501 S.E.2d 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    In Cates v. State, 232 Ga. App. 262 (501 S.E.2d 262) (1998), upon which the State "strongly relies," the officers entered Cates' apartment because they thought that the children within might be in danger, that their confidential informant, who was inside the apartment, might be hurt, that Cates might destroy evidence, and that Cates might flee to Florida.

    State v. Brannan, 222 Ga. App. 372, 373 (1) ( 474 S.E.2d 267) (1996). See, also, State v. David, 225 Ga. App. 541, 543 ( 484 S.E.2d 278) (1997). Deferring to the trial court's determinations with regard to facts and credibility, as we must, we cannot say that the denial of Cates' motion to suppress was clearly erroneous.

  5. Jester v. State

    494 S.E.2d 284 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 8 times

    Furthermore, Ferguson freely signed a consent form indicating that this verbal consent had been given. Although Ferguson testified at the hearing that she never gave consent to the search until after it had occurred, "[i]t is the trial court's duty to determine issues of fact and credibility on a motion to suppress, and we will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous." State v. David, 225 Ga. App. 541, 543 ( 484 S.E.2d 278) (1997). The trial court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Ferguson consented prior to the search, and we will not disturb that finding.